I think it should be the other way around. Religions should get out of marriage. If people want some sort of civil commitment that would give the legal benefits of what we now consider marriage fine. If they want the religious ceremony with it, then they can schedule a separate ceremony. Churches should not be agents of the government.
larry On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:22:22 -0500, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, I think the government should get out of marriage all together. > > Marriage is a religious thing. Government has turned that into something > beyond religion. > > If people want to sign civil contracts they can go right ahead and do that. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yves Arsenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:40 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Gay Marriage( Was: Re: Activist Judges) > > > > One thing about gay marriage..... > > > > This is just my 2 cents... > > > > In my opinion it should be "classified" differently than traditional. > > > > The human rights issue is only speaking about one's right to choose. > > Yes, everyone has the right to make their own choices whatever they > > might be. > > > > But, one relationship is pro-creative and supports the continued human > > existence, while the other cannot. They must be distinguished. All > > emotionalism aside, that is reality. Anyone who voices a disagreement > > with the whole gay marriage thing are almost immediatly branded as > > "intolerant", while it is factual that there are both "good" people > > and "intolerant" people on both sides of the debate. > > > > Emotionalism is killing our right to disagree on sensitive issues. And > > people have the right to disagree, it's ok you know. And it doesn't > > warrant being called "intolerant" etc.... I'm not speaking about > > people (on both sides of the discussion) that suffer from "verbal > > diahrea". Of course there are some comments that are plainly based on > > intolerance, or emotionalism. Not on facts. > > > > I'm not in the business of telling people what they can or cannot do, > > but I should be able to be honest about the reality of the relations > > in mind as I see it. Pro or against, we all have that right. > > > > I would also, push the envelop one step further in issues regarding > > possible financial (or legal) advantages to being married... I knew 2 > > sisters, who for many years were living together and un-married. I > > believe people who have a committed relationship together financially > > should have financial benefits. Those sisters had many investments > > together, like a home, car...etc. That should apply to heterosexual > > couples, gay couples brothers, sisters....etc. > > > > Basically, strong committed relationships should be acknowledged. > > > > Yves > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:148291 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
